Dispatches from the 10th Crusade

What’s Wrong with the World
is dedicated to the defense of
what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of
the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the
Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Empire, Destroying Subsidiarity

Those of us of a more paleoconservative predilection are wont to rail against the American imperium and the perfidy of its architects, not least the lickspittles and toadies who spare no effort, and no canon of scholarship or intellectual integrity, in confabulating legitimating myths with which to veil the nakedness of the Empire. We take it for granted that our jeremiads and imprecations will be received for what they are, in their specificity, namely, denunciations of the American empire, and not of the reification, Empire-in-itself. Consistent with the paleo sensibility - and I must state that 'paleoconservatism' is no more and no less useful than any other political designator in American discourse; 'conservatism' pretty much means little more than 'right-liberal' or 'not-Democratic', which is to say, very little indeed, but enough to give us a spacial understanding of the thing; so also is it with paleoconservatives, who are, taken collectively, the 'not-those-conservatives' - such polemics aren't concerned with the abstract concept of empire, divorced from historical circumstances and cultural particularities, as though we were all closet Straussians, contemptuous of the merely historical and intent upon arguing about transhistorical ideals and anti-ideals, but with the actually-existing American empire, such as it is, and its want of conformity to the better angels of our national character.

So, when Ed Feser linked to Charles Coulombe's disquisition on empire and the American character, and observed that imperialism per se is morally neutral, I not only re-read the linked essay, but did so in a state of bafflement. Not merely because I can conceive of few paleoconservatives, if any, who would argue against empire as an abstraction, but because it would be an odd paleoconservative indeed who could not find, amidst the proliferating variety he tacitly vows to defend, space for the Byzantine Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, or the Habsburg Empire. Such a man would be more a Jacobin than a paleoconservative, and the two admit of no admixture. But the issue is perhaps more focused than that, and the elision in Coulombe's piece enables us to get at the nub of the matter.

It would be pointless to offer a point-by-point critique of that essay, since it is unobjectionable on the whole, and quite illuminating. Nonetheless, the conjunction of the first two points he is at pains to establish - that empires are not invariably evil, and that empire is in some sense consistent with American principles (though, he goes on to argue, we just don't have it in us to 'do' empire) - elides the point at issue in all of those paleo polemics, which so many are weary of reading: That while imperialism may be morally neutral, the actually-existing American imperium is, at best, profoundly tragic, reflecting not merely the ideals that guided the settlement of the West and our commercial traditions, but also the no-less-real flaws of our national character, the wounds of our history, and, by virtue of this tragic character, not a straightforward expression of American ideals that we can affirm without reservation. Granted, empire can be morally indifferent, even meritorious; but arguing that empire is in some sense consistent with American ideals is not the same as arguing that American empire is morally positive, a net ethical gain in human history. Neither, for that matter, is arguing that, pragmatically, we are not suited, presently, to make a go of empire, quite the same as arguing that the normative warrant for an American imperium is wanting. 'Being incompetent at empire' is not equivalent to 'empire being a morally dubious undertaking for us'.

To be certain, there are those who argue that empire is a straightforward transcription of American ideals, particularly politico-economic ones, but the virtual identity of this view with leftist readings of American history ought to give conservatives pause. If conservatives end up sounding like Howard Zinn in terms of narratives, but differ only by virtue of the assignment of an opposite moral value to the narrative, well, the most basic term for what has happened is failure.

American empire, in the judgment of paleoconservatives, is not merely imprudent and tragic, but more often than not a violation of core ethical norms, such as that of subsidiarity. Empire as such may be morally neutral, but any actually-existing empire is either licit on balance or not, and this norm, it would seem, is a critical criterion. Imperial undertakings are legitimate only insofar as they secure essential goods of order and flourishing, the absence of which would be more deleterious to substantive goods than the externalities of empire, where such goods cannot be realized or facilitated by lower levels of political, social, and economic organization. These issues have been debated ad nauseum both on this site and its predecessor, and I do not propose now to resurrect them in summary form, still less in all of their convolutions and nuances. Rather, I'd like to propose a negative argument, the argument from the EU. The EU treaty, in Article 5, section 2, contains the following language - yes, the EU has a subsidiarity clause, widely referred to as such:

In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community.

Notice the absence of any substantive conception of subsidiarity, its place taken by a bare formalism, according to which any objective whatsoever, if deemed essential by the Community, and incapable of realization by the several Member States acting separately, must be assumed by Brussels. Think of the picayune sort of regulations that proliferate in the EU, and of their rationales - economic efficiency - or the general rationale for the EU as a political and economic colossus. The point is not a trivial one: When the objectives ostensibly legitimizing empire, unification, and centralization are utilitarian and consequentialist, the very notion of subsidiarity, intended to guard the substantive goods that local governance, mediating institutions, and civil society make possible, becomes a dead formalism, a mere paper brake upon centralization. The American imperium is much more a utilitarian undertaking of this sort; even in its occasional fits of idealism, its most tragic enterprises, it is hardly securing vital human goods incapable of being provided by others, goods that might not exist at all but for the imperium. That is part of its tragedy, that various calculations of utility become wrapped in a confused idealism, and vitiate human-scaled goods of self-government, political and economic, and the virtues they make possible. It is an empire of aggregation, of more-havingness, something we have in part because we will not govern our own appetites and ambitions, more akin to the EU project than most conservatives are comfortable admitting - which would explain the affinity of the American establishment for a European project explicitly presented as a counterweight to our own influence. Spiritual affinities coexist with geopolitical rivalries, as one would expect of history. And if we gaze upon the imperium and regard it as justified, the EU stands as a cautionary example of how professed commitments can be evacuated of substance by the manifestly utilitarian ambitions of whatever form of hegemony we're proclaiming.

Some empires have been justified, and some might yet be. Not this one.

Comments (22)

"If conservatives end up sounding like Howard Zinn in terms of narratives, but differ only by virtue of the assignment of an opposite moral value to the narrative, well, the most basic term for what has happened is failure."

The flip side of this happened to me recently on another board. I was critiquing the current notion of American empire, and one of the other posters, a neocon of sorts, wrote, "I see you've been reading your Howard Zinn," the implication being that anyone who criticizes the idea is a crypto- (or not so crypto-) leftist. So to the pro-empire crowd, paleos DO sound like Howard Zinn, but for a different reason than you imply!

Maximos, when most people critique the "Empire," they are looking at American foreign policy and actiongs taken by the U.S. government overseas. Is this what you are referring to? It seems to me that the violation of sovereignty or the usurpation of authority overseas is not quite the same as the violation of subsidiarity. However, it seems more appropriate to talk about the violation of subsidiarity if we look at the nation-state as a form of empire, with the centralization of power and the destruction of the federal system after the Civil War. But even then this might be questionable, as I don't think the American Federal system, as originally intended, actually was an embodiment of subsidiarity, but something else.

It is not possible to draw a line of demarcation between American foreign policy and economic globalization, as evidenced by, among other things, the close association of these processes in the rhetoric and policies of successive presidential administrations. Those skeptical in this regard are well advised to consult the work American Empire by Andrew Bacevich.

In my estimation, these policies do impinge upon the concerns of subsidiarity, inasmuch as there is no reason to believe that, absent American foreign policy, the world will implode in a spasm of primordial chaos, nor that, in the absence of actually-existing globalization, widgets will not be produced for all those who require widgets. The rationales for these policies are utilitarian on the whole, and either express confused ethical precepts or utilize ethical terminology as a cloak for something else altogether. The subsidiarist rationale is thus important as a check upon our own activities, as an heuristic device stimulating consideration of what we purpose to do, for what reasons, and whether it is, in fact, really necessary. Put differently, subsidiarity is useful as an analytical tool to the precise extent that a government claims or exerts authority; if the US government asserts the global role that it does, than the principle is imperative as a means of assessing that role. Political and economic authority are not authoritative merely because they claim to be.

Whether the American federal system was an instantiation of subsidiarity is a matter subject to some debate, and I'll not propose to resolve that debate. The emergence of the national system in the wake of the Civil War and Reconstruction manifestly was, however, a violation of subsidiarity both political and economic.

The problem I have with discussions of subsidiarity, is the notion that by itself subsidiarity is a "core ethical norm". It seems to this unabashed fan of Kagan and other neo-cons, that the cloak of subsidiarity is used by those who want to hide other moral evils -- for example slavery in pre-Civil War America. Yes, the Union smashed the unique and particular way of life in the antebellum South and before that Western expansion smashed the unique and particular way of life for American Indians and before that the Spaniards smashed the unique and particular way of life for the average Aztec or Inca warrior. And in each case, despite the tragedy inherent in any exercise of power, I would argue contra to the paleos that indeed "American empire is morally positive, a net ethical gain in human history." Because when I compare Aztec society, or North-American Indian society, or society in the antebellum South with what came after I'm ready and willing to make ethical judgements that I guess come out differently than the ones you would make. Which is strange, because I know from previous posts for example you think slavery is evil and wrong, but somehow you view its end as tragic and/or worth preserving for some other positive qualities you find in the slave states.

The same is true of all the economic arguments we get into -- I see the positive material gains made possible by inter-state commerce, railroads and highways, trade between countries, the internet, etc. and you somehow come to a different conclusion because you claim these material gains somehow come with a poison chalice that ruins us in other ways.

But in each case it seems to me what we are arguing over are ethical norms that have nothing to do with subsidiarity. Or am I wrong?

If we think of a lack of subsidiarity as tyranny it may help. Granted that doesn't help much in terms of actually adjudicating which concrete exercises of power are tyrannical and which are not; but if we keep in mind that when William Wallace screams "freedom" what he means is subsidiarity that might make the status of subsidiarity as a real, concrete moral norm easier to grasp. In fact I would propose that, as is so often the pattern, the modernist notion of political freedom is an atomized, individualistic perversion of the legitimate value of subsidiarity. (I would also suggest that the perversion of that legitimate value was well entrenched in the American South prior to the Civil War, which is part of what makes me less than sympathetic to the neoconfederate strain in paleoconservatism).

but if we keep in mind that when William Wallace screams "freedom" what he means is subsidiarity

I saw an interview with Mel shortly after the film, in which he indicated that the original line in the script was indeed "subsidiarity," but something about that just didn't feel right to him, and he changed it to "freedom." He thought that in the end, it was the right decision.

"you think slavery is evil and wrong, but somehow you view its end as tragic and/or worth preserving for some other positive qualities you find in the slave states."

I won't speak for Jeff, but as a fellow 'paleo' I'll put it this way: my problem isn't with the fact THAT slavery was ended, but HOW it was ended. As W.E.B DuBois put it, despite the bad thing that died (and had to die), there were good things that unfortunately died with it. My contention would be that the good things that died along with slavery didn't have to -- subsidiarity was one of them.

I think one question we need to ask openly is this: Is it ever morally just for one country to conquer and forcibly reform another _solely_ because of the great internal evils of the second country? Is that _always_ wrong? Intrinsically wrong? So vastly unwise as to be in practice always wrong? Etc.

I think very often in cases such as the conquest of Wales and the attempted conquest of Scotland (which William Wallace resisted), this question is obscured by the fact that there really was no question of such a thing. Edward I wanted to rule all the countries on the same physical island, period. His methods were straightforward and his ambitions patent. That arouses all of my indignation against what I might call "excuse-less conquerors." Mere conquerors. Bare conquerors for the sake of conquest.

On the other hand, C. S. Lewis had an uncompleted story called "The Dark Tower." And no, I don't think it was a forgery; that was a silly libel against Hooper. The story just obviously wasn't turning out to be very _good_ literarily, and that's why Lewis decided not to finish it. Okay. But in it, there is this horrible society in which people are stabbed by a half-man-half-unicorn monster and turned into robots. And it becomes clear even in the fragment we have that there is this other, good country that is trying to conquer the evil country. There is a girl and a young man who have gotten accidentally trapped in the evil country through a sort of sci-fi situation, and it's pretty clear that as the story goes on you will be absolutely _longing_ for the outsiders to come in and trounce this evil, perverted regime and free its victims.

So obviously we can imagine cases where that seems right. Does this have any relevance to the real world?

America is but an evil conqueror of nations with a supremely megalomaniacal bent which catalog of egregious offences seem quite extensive, given the historical record of events which include the Gulf, Vietnam, Korea, and even France!

I am, therefore, pleased that we have begun a much needed reformation in the immediately present circumstances whereby we will now extend so happily and ever after such loving charity even unto the most abominable of detestable enemies, the terrorists, to whom we will but extend henceforth our heartfelt wishes and the deepest apologies for past transgressions and, should we ever find ourselves in their company as necessitated by a matter of suspicion, render unto them but the finest hospitality to meet their every need in such occasion and even let go!

Why, we should even go so far as to do our utmost in providing every manner of beneficence onto them -- after all, it's not as if our enemies wish to do malicious harm to ourselves, our families or to any other of our loved ones; it's not as if they ever did; and it's not as if 9/11 even happened!

Most certainly and always, America is the Evil Empire; moreover, it is in fact the cause of the very travail we suffer in current times.

I think one question we need to ask openly is this: Is it ever morally just for one country to conquer and forcibly reform another _solely_ because of the great internal evils of the second country? Is that _always_ wrong? Intrinsically wrong?

I would say yes, no, and no to those questions, without any hesitation. In principle one may certainly defend others in this way, which (this defense) would not be an imposition of tyranny but rather the restoration of subsidiarity.

I won't speak for Jeff, but as a fellow 'paleo' I'll put it this way: my problem isn't with the fact THAT slavery was ended, but HOW it was ended. As W.E.B DuBois put it, despite the bad thing that died (and had to die), there were good things that unfortunately died with it. My contention would be that the good things that died along with slavery didn't have to -- subsidiarity was one of them.

Well put Rob, and we also shouldn't neglect the fact that chattel slavery was likely becoming uneconomical anyway. I recall seeing some old posters for slave auctions in which prices like $300, $500, and $1000 were attributed "sale" values. Those were big figures back in those days. Fifty cents a day for a free man (whom you also didn't need to feed, clothe, and house... in appalling conditions or otherwise) may very well have been seen as a bargain. Inevitably, given the high levels of low skill immigration that the US would experience in the second half the 19th century (already well under way before the Civil War), slavery, in competition with free labor, would have died a natural death. That is perhaps a bit simplistic (I'll bow to the historical experts), but it is undeniable that slavery (the chattel version at any rate) ended throughout the western world over a relatively short span of time... and most often did so without 600,000 dead.

That is perhaps a bit simplistic (I'll bow to the historical experts), but it is undeniable that slavery (the chattel version at any rate) ended throughout the western world over a relatively short span of time... and most often did so without 600,000 dead.

Which makes the fact the Confederate states could not imagine a future without it and would not relent of their "peculiar institution" even less understandable.

Lydia may remember one of the best quotes from Right Reason, sourced to a nameless TN minister. "We will fight the secessionists until hell freezes over, then we will fight them on the ice."

Your comment intrigues me and was sort of the point of my original comment. What is it about subsidiarity, as practiced in the antebellum South, that you admire? What did the South lose, that wasn't built on the backs of slaves, that you think was lost during Reconstruction?

Steve Nicoloso,

Let's just say that it is far from clear that the South thought slavery was uneconomical or that it was going to die a natural death anytime soon around 1860.

Step2,

That may be one of the greatest quotes ever!

To all,

Here is one more thought that comes to mind when thinking about Western empires in particular. In most primitive societies that the West conquered, the idea and legal institution of private property was basically non-existant. One could say that many of our conflicts with Indian tribes were over land and who had rights to use that land. I happen to think private property is one of the most ethical and moral innovations of the Western world. What is one to do when you are an American colonist and come across land you want to use, that was previously being used by an Indian tribe for hunting, but the tribe has no conception of "owning" that land and just wants to keep using it as they have for maybe hundreds of years? Should westerners have simply walked away from that land or; were we right to put up a fence and tell the Indians that we were using the land for crops, or for grazing farm animals or for whatever? I think we were right despite the sometimes tragic consequences of our differing views about land ownership. What says the group?

What is one to do when you are an American colonist and come across land you want to use, that was previously being used by an Indian tribe for hunting, but the tribe has no conception of "owning" that land and just wants to keep using it as they have for maybe hundreds of years? Should westerners have simply walked away from that land or; were we right to put up a fence and tell the Indians that we were using the land for crops, or for grazing farm animals or for whatever? I think we were right despite the sometimes tragic consequences of our differing views about land ownership. What says the group?

Striking at the very heart of the matter, Mr. Singer puts forth the very question needing answer herein, in my humble opinion.

In other words, who's to say that our activities abroad, either previously or in the present, are nothing more than an extended version of Manifest Destiny?

It seems to this unabashed fan of Kagan and other neo-cons, that the cloak of subsidiarity is used by those who want to hide other moral evils...

If I did not know that you were expressing this reservation in good faith, I'd be profoundly insulted by this, as it is in reality a complete inversion of the ethical concerns implicated in the discussion: Paleoconservatives invoking subsidiarity as over against the centralized nation-state, the empire, or other forms of gigantism and aggregation, are not concerned to defend evils, such as slavery or the sanguinary cults of Meso-America - few of them, I'd imagine, find the Spanish conquests objectionable, though questions might well be raised about subsequent Spanish governance - but to set at bounds the tendency to resort to war, conquest, expansion, and domination, all of them processes, acts, or states of relation in which self-deception and delusion are frequently bound together with, or overwhelm entirely, ostensibly noble motivations. A war to end slavery sounds rather noble; a war to subjugate a section of country favouring an alternative mode of political economy, even apart from the peculiar institution, much less so; and of course both elements were present in the Civil War. And a war of conquest fought to extirpate a society predicated upon warfare and human sacrifice likewise sounds noble, but we all know that the Spanish didn't journey to America having received visions from the Almighty, consecrating them to the sacred task of ending human sacrifice. That sort of happened, once they were there, already in pursuit of their rather avaricious ambitions.

There is something to be said for acknowledging the complexity of history; I do it all the time. But while it is assuredly licit to conquer and forcibly reform a country sunken in wickedness and barbarism - provided that the undertaking can be squared with just war doctrine, ie., has reasonable prospects of success, will not result in the emergence of evils greater in magnitude than those suppressed, and so forth - it is a manifest perversion of subsidiarity to embark upon such an endeavour merely because the institutions of some other country are other than one's own, or because its people have attained to a lower level of civilization, or because their economic institutions, by the standards of one's own, are unproductive, inefficient, or fail to generate "sufficient" surplus value (as with Locke's justification for colonialism). Absent the restraining imperative of a respect for the diversity of mankind, the social, economic, and political expression of which is subsidiarity, we are apt to clothe our vices in the raiment of virtue, granting ourselves an automatic absolution, proclaiming ourselves just in proportion as we work injustice.

But in each case it seems to me what we are arguing over are ethical norms that have nothing to do with subsidiarity.

I'd suggest that the ethical norms are integrally related, but not identical; and that this debate concerns what constitutes sufficient reason for acts of conquest and relations of domination. Most generally, one set of ethical norms concerns the hierarchy of goods and obligations applicable across the many spheres of human endeavour; subsidiarity concerns the right ordering of community, the translation of that hierarchy, or those elements of the ethical hierarchy pertinent to the architecture of society, into an organizational model prudently adapted to circumstances. If persons are by nature subject to greater obligations towards those nearer them by blood and propinquity, and the fulfillment of these obligations both is their good and generates further goods, then it is a violation of these obligations and goods to interfere, save on expressly normative grounds, or in cases of demonstrable incapacity, and failure to fulfill a utilitarian criterion is neither an ethical violation nor an incapacity to discharge obligations and realize human goods.

I think we were right despite the sometimes tragic consequences of our differing views about land ownership. What says the group?

The absence of modern, Western conceptions of property rights and relations is not an ethical violation; property may be proper to man, but property has assumed many forms throughout the history of our race, the natural law being not so narrow as to mandate something historical and contingent.

It seems to me that the proper approach in the case of any confrontation between cultures or civilizations having differing conceptions of property relations is to assume as given the conception of property relations prevailing in the recipient culture, increasing the articulation of that conception where necessary in order to facilitate intercourse between the cultures. Hence, if an hypothetical Indian tribe's families are accustomed to hunting on tracts of land having certain rough dimensions, one strives to articulate more completely the customary notion of use/ownership and, if one is desirous of this land, negotiates for the transfer of its use or ownership. Even where an hypothetical Indian tribe lacks a developed notion of "ownership", but only recognizes use, a certain value may be assigned to that use, based on periods of time & etc., and this can form of the basis of negotiations. For example, Indian tribes living in southeastern PA are said to have formed into family units spread out over tracts roughly the size of our present townships; doubtless these tracts were capable of sustaining many fewer hunter-gatherers than settled farmers, but that is scarcely the point. They laboured upon the land to provide for their families, and this use was their mode of possession. With that in mind, there is a historical marker not terribly far from my house commemorating the Walking Purchase, in which colonists negotiated the sale and transfer of a tract of land, from the native people, equal in breadth to the distance that a man could traverse in a day. Now, the colonists swindled the Indians by hiring trained men in order to increase the size of their acquisition; but the point is that these things can be accomplished without expropriating property on the grounds that some party refuses to employ the land in the most lucrative manner possible, or in a manner consistent with the customs of the other party. That's called stealing, however much one attempts to prettify it with theories of "improvement", that Whiggish obsession, or forfeiture on the part of those who generate insufficient surplus value.

A contemporary analogue would be an argument to the effect that we are ethically entitled, or even obligated, to conquer socialist countries in order to render their economic organization more efficient and productive. Stated in this fashion, the absurdity becomes manifest. We're not entitled to conquer Cuba (again) merely because we believe we can render it a more prosperous nation.

In other words, who's to say that our activities abroad, either previously or in the present, are nothing more than an extended version of Manifest Destiny?

Echoes of Frederick Jackson Turner's The Frontier in American History:
"We are now in a position to see clearly some of the factors involved in the Western problem. For nearly three centuries the dominant fact in American life has been expansion. With the settlement of the Pacific coast and the occupation of the free lands, this movement has come to a check. That these energies of expansion will no longer operate would be a rash prediction; and the demands for a vigorous foreign policy, for an interoceanic canal, for a revival of our power upon the seas, and for the extension of American influence to outlying islands and adjoining countries, are indications that the movement will continue".

I thank you for your two thoughtful responses. I was especially intrigued by the story of the peaceful exchange with the Indians in southeastern PA. I would agree that peaceful trading, even with a culture that didn't appreciate the norms and traditions of Western private property, is preferrable to conquest and theft. But I also think those peaceful exchanges were so rare because both sides weren't always so peaceful and/or willing to trade as equals.

But as for the ethical norms embedded within subsidiarity, I must confess your answer still confuses me. To wit, you say the following:

"Most generally, one set of ethical norms concerns the hierarchy of goods and obligations applicable across the many spheres of human endeavour; subsidiarity concerns the right ordering of community, the translation of that hierarchy, or those elements of the ethical hierarchy pertinent to the architecture of society, into an organizational model prudently adapted to circumstances. If persons are by nature subject to greater obligations towards those nearer them by blood and propinquity, and the fulfillment of these obligations both is their good and generates further goods, then it is a violation of these obligations and goods to interfere, save on expressly normative grounds, or in cases of demonstrable incapacity, and failure to fulfill a utilitarian criterion is neither an ethical violation nor an incapacity to discharge obligations and realize human goods."

Again, this seems to me to beg the obvious question: what do you consider someone's "good"? By this formulation, if I'm a southern slave-owner, then my good is the protection of my property and the institution of slavery which generates the wealth for my society to support their (white) families. You go on to say that someone (or some government) would be justified "to interfere" on "normative grounds". But this is exactly why I think the North was justified in its war against the South -- the normative ground being that slavery is wrong. The fact that the North also wanted to maintain their (foolish) tariffs or whatever other theoretical material benefits they gained from the war were always secondary to the question of slavery, and this fact only became more true as the war progressed.

In the end, it still seems we are debating the importance or the ethical norm in question, a tyrannical society or a society than organizes itself around chattel slavery, rather than the principle of subsidiarity.

The one paleo critique realted to subsidiarity that does make sense to me, is the notion that both Zippy and Rob G are getting at in their comments -- that even though we may be aware of an injustice in another society or a place far away, it is often difficult to right the wrong, especially through force. I agree that it would be a much better world if every people that labored under tyrants had someone like Vaclav Havel to help lead them to force a (generally) peaceful end to that tyranny. But as us neocons like to say, that doesn't seem like a realistic foreign policy not to mention a moral one. Sometimes the use of force can in fact accomplish much good. The trick is in finding the right balance -- where we can support the Havels of the world, we should. But where they don't exist, we might need the proverbial barrel of a gun.

"Your comment intrigues me and was sort of the point of my original comment. What is it about subsidiarity, as practiced in the antebellum South, that you admire? What did the South lose, that wasn't built on the backs of slaves, that you think was lost during Reconstruction?"

Well, it's any number of things -- the notion of honor as a code of action, the very idea of gentlemanliness, the importance of family and community over and above money-making, the remnant in America of Jeffersonian democracy...you could on for quite awhile. It's important to note that not all of this was entirely dependant on slavery, but neither were these things universal across the South, nor limited to it. It isn't necessary to accept a "moonlight and magnolias" view of the old South upon rejecting the standard Northern liberal narrative that we all get in high school and college. As one writer put it, not all abolitionists were John Brown, but neither were all slaveholders Simon Legree.

For my money one of the best and most balanced works on the subject is Eugene Genovese's "The Southern Tradition." He makes no apologies for the South's sins, but neither does he ignore the positive aspects of that culture. Likewise, the 12 Southerners' "I'll Take My Stand," published in 1930, is instructive here, as is Robert Penn Warren's "The Legacy of the Civil War."

**Which makes the fact the Confederate states could not imagine a future without it and would not relent of their "peculiar institution" even less understandable.**

This is true to a certain extent, but fails to take into consideration the fact that while slavery was the primary reason for secession, it wasn't the only reason.

"It is a hard thing to live haunted by the ghost of an untrue dream; to see the wide vision of empire fade into real ashes and dirt; to feel the pang of the conquered, and yet know that with all the Bad that fell on one black day, something was vanquished that deserved to live, something killed in justice that had not dared to die; to know that with the Right that triumphed, triumphed something of Wrong, something sordid and mean, something less than the broadest and best. All this is bitter hard..."

The dozen banks receiving the biggest rescue packages, totaling more than $150 billion, requested visas for more than 21,800 foreign workers over the past six years for positions that included senior vice presidents, corporate lawyers, junior investment analysts and human resources specialists. The average annual salary for those jobs was $90,721, nearly twice the median income for all American households.

"Armonk-based IBM Corp. might be trimming thousands of jobs this year, but those workers now have another option besides a trip to the unemployment line...Former workers will be put in contact with hiring managers at IBM units in countries including Slovenia, Romania, Brazil, Nigeria, the Czech Republic, South Africa and the United Arab Emirates, according to the document." http://www.lohud.com/article/20090204/BUSINESS01/902040334

Post a comment

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If
your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same
comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.